On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 03:22, Amy Alexander wrote:
> if it's of any use, one of the more constructive responses seems to be the
> Photography Defense, which provides historical perspective on similar
> debates over technology and art. i.e. "Did you know that when artists
> first began to work with photography, painters rejected it as mechanical
> and antithetical to art? It took awhile for people to understand and
> appreciate the artistic possibilities of photography, and how they are
> different than those of painting...." ... it gets head nods from the
> computer artists, at least. :-)
Perhaps it is useful to say "Here is something that was once rejected
and is now accepted" to open minds a little, but it isn't a strong
argument - it doesn't follow that programming will be accepted later
just because it is rejected now.
Actually I think the original question was a valid one and a deserves a
direct answer, even though it was raised in a over-indulgent manner.
I played the guitar for several years but never got far enough to
compose something of my own. So with a maesure of honesty I could say
that I program music because I failed to play the guitar. However, I
understand that Nick can play real instruments very well but is still
compelled to write musical software, so there must be something in it.
So why do we feel the need to distance ourselves from the experience of
plucking each individual sound out of a musical instrument?
The answer for me is that I find it more satisfying to work in this
way. Any distance from the sound is an illusion. We may be a level of
abstraction away from the sound but that doesn't necessarily distance us
from it. We still have full control over the timbre, but we are working
on the composition at the same time. In fact we are able to think of
timbre and composition as different resolutions of the same thing, which
of course they are.
alex
--
alex <alex_at_slab.org>
slab laboratories
Received on Thu Jul 08 2004 - 00:47:12 BST